Carol
I read the article by Zittoun et al as recognizing that Piaget's theory did
not theorize "other" as central, but Piaget did write about the social in
his sociological studies in later life. Zittoun's article however suggest
that post-Piagetian theory finds this later writing compelling
as it recognizes the weakness of Piaget's earlier accounts in theorizing
"other". 2nd and 3rd generation Piagetian scholars have taken the
direction that Piaget pointed to in his sociological studies and extended
Piaget's sociogenetic model by engaging with Vygotsky, Mead, and Bernstein.
Now whether foregrounding "other" throughout the lifespan is still
recognized as Piagetian or should be considered a"mediational model" is
open to debate. What interested me in the article was the CENTRALITY of
"other" in the models Zittoun et al have labelled sociogenetic and
post-Piagetian. [for historical reasons]
A theorist named Robert Kegan wrote a book called "The Evolving Self"
which was written as an extension of Piagetian theory that suggests each
"stage" of development is a re-negotiation of Self/Other differentiation.
At each level what is experienced as what you HAVE [objective] and what is
experienced as who you ARE [subjective] is re-negotiated. Robert Kegan
could be labelled a post-Piagetian and he suggests that the Self/Other
dialectic is never completed but is a developmental achievement which
evolves within predictable stages. He called his theory
"Constructive-Developmental". It is the extension of Piagetian theory to
theorize the centrality of "other" in the development of "self" that seems
to be the hallmark of Kegan's post-Piagetian tradition. Kegan worked at
Harvard with W. Perry, L. Kohlberg, Carol Gilligan, and Sharon Parks. I'm
not sure how this theoretical model has evolved since the 1980's when Kegan
wrote his book but it is one example of how sosciogenetic models can be
extended in ways Piaget could not imagine.
Post-Piagetian theory seems to be embracing many insights of Activity
theory and there may be an emerging synthesis in the spirit of "both/and"
that Mike mentioned.
I also find it interesting that the article written by Alex Gillespie and
Jack Martin, recently written from a neo-Meadian perspective, [article can
be accessed and downloaded from Gillespie's website] was being presented at
the yearly meeting of the Piagetian Society. It seems in 2010 that
post-Piagetian theorizing is continuing to see "other" as central to the
emergence of "agentic capacity".
I'm going to read Tolman's article as a response to the above thoughts as I
attempt to understand the linkages between the accounts of "activity" and
accounts of the "other(s)"
Carol, I hope this was helpful in clarifying my thinking on this topic.
Larry
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>wrote:
> A week too late Larry, tidying up here, just a point. For Piaget the
> differentiation of the self from the other is the major achievement of the
> sensorimotor period.The infant first lives in an undifferentiated whole.
> But
> Piaget rapidly loses interest in the other, focussed as he is on the third
> person, i.e. the "it". Piaget late in his long life wrote about the social
> in what was translated as "sociological studies", but the social was never
> integrated into his "standard theory" by which we know him. In one late
> (mostly unreadable) piece, Piaget in a schema puts consciousness as
> existing *between* the subject and the object. For LSV that would have
> been
> unconscionable.
>
> (When I have put my mind to reading the Companion to Piaget, I could
> probably make more of a contribution than I do here.)
>
> Carol
>
> On 22 July 2010 21:30, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi Andy
> > I agree that Zittoun et al are creating out of their own imaginations
> some
> > mediational triangles which may not have theorized by Freud. However, I
> > consider this imaginal process that attempts to ABSTRACT and make
> explicit
> > what they "read" as implicit in Freud's theory as a central aspect of
> > generating new perspectives by coordinating previously generated
> > perspectives. Looking at Zittoun et al's explication as a creative
> > "imaginal" construction which generates a new perspective therefore seems
> > to
> > be a legitimate way to proceed. However, when the ideas get posted to
> CHAT
> > and are reflected on by scholars who take different perspectives, the
> > reasonableness of their perspectives are scrutinized in a community of
> > inquiry.
> >
> > However, what I appreciated in thes is that eir framing of psychoanalytic
> > perspectives is that "emotion" is a central construct in the emergence
> and
> > constitution of agency.
> >
> > I also agree Andy that what they are framing as "post-Piagetian" theory
> [by
> > embracing Vygotsky and mediation] could be seen as going beyond Piaget
> and
> > should no longer be framed as "piagetian" and should be called a
> > "mediational" theory. However, what I take from their review of
> Piagetian
> > theory is the emphasis on "Other(s)" as central to emerging "agency".
> >
> > Therefore "emotions" in one tradition and "other" in "post" Piagetian
> > theory
> > are theorized or "imagined" as central.
> >
> > The question I posted to open this thread was the historical trajectory
> of
> > these various mediational models. Is there a general trend of moving from
> > 2nd person perspectives of actual social interaction, to a more
> > "generalized
> > other(s)" perspective within institutional structures, and then more
> > recently towards social representations [Moscovici] and Hermeneutical
> > accounts which put HISTORY [however this is theorized] as cental within
> > developmental theory.
> >
> > As an example of this broader historical approach would be how we
> > understand reason and rationality. Gillespie and Jack Martin explain
> acting
> > on the basis of reasons as involving reasoning about what would occur IF
> a
> > given course of action were or were not taken. In this particular
> > perspectival approach ANTICIPATED, possible consequences of particular
> > actions enter into the reasoning that is the basis for acting. What is
> > thought MIGHT happen becomes a DETERMINANT of what DOES happen because
> > people are are REACTING to and reasoning about POSSIBLE futures.
> >
> > This account of reasoning puts the imaginal anticipation of possible
> > futures
> > at the center of rationality. Now my question is the historical
> > constitution of this form of cognition. Do we within Eurocentric
> > historical traditions develop this particular perspectival stance towards
> > "reality" as a particular perspectival frame [which on some accounts can
> be
> > historically located in Greece in the transition from dialogue to "text"
> or
> > is rationality a more "universal" perspective?
> >
> > Andy,
> > If Zittoun's article's get others to REACT [respond] and it furthers
> > dialogical [and textual] coordination of multiple perspectives, then its
> > worth engaging with the article.
> >
> > Larry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Larry,
> > >
> > > I have read about halfway through the Zittoun paper, but I got a bit
> fed
> > up
> > > with it. Mainly, I think he is simply putting his own idea of mediation
> > into
> > > what he reads. On Freud for example, he creates out of his own
> > imagination
> > > some mediational triangles which were never seen in those terms by
> Freud
> > > himself, so far as I know. But he makes no mention of the
> Id-Ego-Superego
> > (I
> > > grant not developmental in the sense he wants) which is a very
> prominent
> > > triad in Freud. Nor does he make mention of Donald Winnicott who quite
> > > explicitly made a mediational reading of Freud of the kind Zittoun is
> > > imagining.
> > >
> > > Then we get to Vygotsky and his imagination runs wild. Vygotsky
> > discovered
> > > that people were not like animals in the mid-1920s! This is the guy
> whose
> > > previous interests were aesthetics and lit crit before going into
> > education,
> > > and in his very first recorded intervention, defined consciousness as
> the
> > > mediator between physiology and behaviour!
> > >
> > > As I see it, both unmediated interaction and mediation have a very long
> > > history in psychology and social philosophy generally. In American and
> > > German traditions, mediation is almost ubiquitous. The French on the
> > other
> > > hand are obsessed with dichotomy and binaries, but only for the purpose
> > of
> > > "exposing" and "desconstructing" them, so not as alien to mediation as
> > > appears at first sight. But social and psychological analysis which
> takes
> > a
> > > unit of analysis which is unmediated is still today, I think,
> > predominant,
> > > as it was in the 17th century.
> > >
> > > And the genealogy you refer to, I mean, calling followers of Vygotsky
> > > "post-Piagetian." I question whether this designation makes any sense,
> as
> > > Piaget is a direct descendant of Kant and those looking to Vygotsky and
> > Mead
> > > come from a quite distinct current of thinking and were not followers
> of
> > > Piaget. There are, of course, thinkers who use an unmediated model,
> such
> > as
> > > the intersubjectivists, who do wish to "take into account" context, but
> > with
> > > them "context" is moderation perhaps, but not mediation.
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Larry Purss wrote:
> > >
> > >> I am curious if a historical trajectory Zittoun, Gillespie, Cornish,
> > and
> > >> Psaltis have suggested has evloved in Piagetian developmental theory
> is
> > a
> > >> more general trend in developmental theories. The reason I ask is it
> > >> seems
> > >> to parallel my emerging perspectives and questions about development.
> > >>
> > >> Zittoun et al suggest Piagetian models have developed through 4
> > >> generations
> > >> of theorizing the subject-OTHER-object model of development.
> > >> [sociocognitive
> > >> model] They suggest Piaget [except in his early work] focused on the
> > >> binary
> > >> subject-object transmission of knowledge and was a model of interior
> > >> mediation.
> > >> The first generation of post-Piagetian models looked to Mead,
> Vygotsky,
> > >> Bernstein, and Moscovici to reorient to a triadic subject-OTHER-
> object
> > >> triangle and resocialized Piaget's model. Subject and other have
> > >> differing
> > >> perspectives and this creates tension and creates a de-centering and
> > >> cognitive elaborations. Chapman's term was the "epistemic triangle".
> In
> > >> this first generationof post-Piagetian models tension is created
> between
> > >> persons interacting as different intentional beings, "but these
> > >> intentional
> > >> participants are not typically considered in terms of their societally
> > >> situated roles.
> > >> A second line of post-piagetian models deepens and extends the notion
> of
> > >> the
> > >> social to the whole subject-other-object SYSTEM [context] that takes
> > place
> > >> in a world structured by social positions, VALUES, rules, and
> > DISCOURSES"
> > >> which are all factors which CONSTITUTE social positions and thus the
> > >> PERSPECTIVES of the participants in the epistemic triangle. This
> > extends
> > >> interpersonal coordination to include intergroup and ideological
> > >> processes.
> > >> This generation of models focused on the INSTITUTIONAL contexts and
> > >> re-focuses on the centrality of the object as mediating SYSTEMS of
> > social
> > >> relations [positions]
> > >> More recently another generation of epistemic triangle models is
> > exploring
> > >> the constitutive role social and institutional Asymmetires within
> > >> societal
> > >> contexts. [Duveen]
> > >>
> > >> This movement from interpersonal interactivity, to institutional roles
> > and
> > >> positions, and then into social representations and hermeneutics
> gives
> > an
> > >> expanding role to history and traditions and seems parallel to the
> > >> direction
> > >> in which my curiosity is wandering. I was curious if the patterns or
> > >> configurations of emerging epistemic triangle models of development to
> > >> embrace hermeneutics, traditions, and history as the CONTEXT in which
> > >> interpersonal participation is embedded is a trajectory that is more
> > >> general
> > >> across other triangle models of development?
> > >>
> > >> Larry
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> xmca mailing list
> > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > > --
> > >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > *Andy Blunden*
> > > Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/<http://home.mira.net/~andy/>
> >
> > > Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> > > Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WORK as:
> Visiting Lecturer
> Wits School of Education
> HOME (please use these details)
> 6 Andover Road
> Westdene
> Johannesburg 2092
> +27 (0)11 673 9265 +27 (0)82 562 1050
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca